Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 42 references

Human-Robot collaboration in surgery: Advances and challenges towards autonomous surgical assistants

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read 32 studies map autonomous surgical assistants and their four barriers

desk verdict A workmanlike PRISMA review that gives a useful taxonomy and map of autonomous surgical assistants, but the claim that its four technical challenges are the primary adoption barriers overreaches the pre-clinical evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.11460 v1 pith:MJXOOATA submitted 2025-07-15 cs.RO cs.HC

Jacinto Colan , Ana Davila , Yutaro Yamada , Yasuhisa Hasegawa This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.HC
keywords autonomoussurgicalassistanthuman-robotcollaborationminimallyinvasivesurgeryendoscopeguidancetoolmanipulationpreferencealignmentsystematicreviewhumanfactors
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This systematic review of autonomous surgical assistant robots (ASARs) argues that the empirically validated literature is organized by two collaboration setups: teleoperation, where the lead surgeon works from a console while the robot assists, and hands-on, where both work in the sterile field. It reports that roughly 70 percent of the 32 included studies focus on endoscope guidance, with tool manipulation making up the remaining 31 percent, and that research output has grown noticeably since 2018. The paper's central contention is that clinical adoption is blocked less by raw autonomy than by four named obstacles: aligning robotic behavior with individual surgeon preferences, giving robots procedural awareness of the surgical workflow, acquiring collaborative skills without sufficient human-robot demonstration data, and enabling intuitive two-way information exchange. A reader should care because the review converts an abstract debate about surgical autonomy into a concrete, prioritized research agenda.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery of the review is its systematic selection pipeline: three literature databases, 888 initial records, and a set of inclusion criteria that keeps only empirically validated studies reporting human factors, producing 32 analyzed papers. Within that pipeline, the two-setup taxonomy (teleoperation versus hands-on) organizes all reported results, and the application categories of endoscope guidance versus tool control generate the review's headline proportions. The four-challenge framework is the explanatory output of the taxonomy, grouping the reviewed studies by the obstacle they address. This machinery matters because every descriptive claim in the paper inherits its scope from the search and inclusion choices.

What would settle it

Run the same three-database search without the 'autonom*' requirement, or with synonyms such as 'semi-autonomous' and 'shared autonomy' included, and compare the resulting proportions; if the share of tool-manipulation studies moves substantially above 31 percent, or if the ordering of the four challenges changes, the review's descriptive core is an artifact of its query.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a synthesis: across 32 selected studies, autonomous assistance in robotic minimally invasive surgery appears in two configurations and is currently concentrated on endoscope guidance rather than on direct tool manipulation. The review finds that early camera systems used simple instrument tracking, while recent systems combine context-aware phase recognition, gesture and voice interfaces, and learning-based personalization. It then argues that four challenges, human preference alignment, procedural awareness, collaborative skill acquisition, and human-robot information exchange, are the primary barriers to clinical translation, with preference alignment cited in 20 of the included studies. As a review, the claim is that these proportions, trends, and challenge categories accurately summarize the empirical literature that meets its inclusion criteria.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusions depend on the assumption that the database query requiring the token 'autonom*' and the exclusion of shared-control and non-human-factors studies captured the relevant population of autonomous surgical assistant work, so the reported proportions and challenge counts are not artifacts of those search choices.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the two-setup taxonomy holds, future work can compare teleoperation-based and hands-on assistance head-to-head on the same surgical task, rather than treating them as unrelated subfields.
  • If endoscope guidance is the dominant and most mature application, clinical translation efforts should concentrate there first, where user studies already report reduced workload and improved efficiency.
  • If preference alignment is the most frequently cited challenge, then personalization frameworks that adapt to surgeon style without long tuning times are the highest-leverage research target.
  • If collaborative skill acquisition is under-addressed in the literature, building shared human-robot demonstration datasets for tasks such as tissue triangulation and suturing becomes a necessary precondition for progress.
  • If information exchange is a recognized bottleneck, multimodal interfaces that combine explicit commands with implicit cues, plus standardized evaluation metrics, are the indicated direction.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The review's own inclusion rule excludes shared-control systems without a distinct assistant role, so its 70/30 split likely undercounts work described as shared autonomy; extending the query to that vocabulary is a direct way to test whether the field is really endoscope-dominated.
  • If the four-challenge taxonomy is right, then for regulators and hospital procurement the critical certification target is not the robot's autonomy level but the quality of the surgeon-robot communication channel and its failure modes.
  • The reported benefit for less experienced surgeons suggests a testable training hypothesis: autonomous camera guidance may accelerate early skill acquisition, which could move these systems from assistive devices to educational tools.
  • A bibliometric follow-up that tracks the same 32 studies over the next five years could turn the paper's growth trend into a quantitative forecast and reveal whether tool manipulation overtakes endoscope guidance.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports a PRISMA-guided systematic review of autonomous surgical assistant robots (ASARs) in robot-assisted minimally invasive surgery (RMIS). The authors searched IEEE Xplore, Scopus, and Web of Science (2015–2025), identified 888 records, and retained 32 empirical studies after screening. They classify the literature into two collaborative setups (teleoperation and hands-on), report that approximately 69% of studies address endoscope guidance and 31% address tool manipulation, and synthesize four challenge categories: human preference alignment, procedural awareness, collaborative skill acquisition, and human-robot information exchange. The conclusion states that these four challenges are the primary barriers to clinical adoption and proposes a research agenda built around them.

Significance. If the conclusions were supported by the evidence, this review would provide a useful map of a rapidly growing field and a prioritized research agenda. The paper's strengths include a transparent PRISMA flow diagram, explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria, a reproducible search string, and a structured tabulation of the included studies with human-factors outcomes. The topic is timely, and the descriptive synthesis of endoscope-guidance versus tool-manipulation tasks is informative. However, the significance is currently limited by an interpretive overreach from pre-clinical prototype results to clinical adoption barriers, and by methodological choices that weaken the representativeness of the quantitative claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [§IV, §V] The statement that the four challenges 'represent the primary barriers to widespread clinical translation and adoption' is not supported by the evidence. All 32 studies are pre-clinical evaluations using virtual simulations, phantom models, or ex-vivo procedures (as stated in §II-C and shown in Tables III and IV). None of the studies reports an adoption-related outcome such as regulatory approval, operating-room integration, surgeon adoption decisions, reimbursement, liability, or workflow resistance in actual practice. The four challenges are the authors' categorization of technical limitations observed in prototypes, not demonstrated barriers to clinical adoption. Because the review does not sample the clinical-translation literature, it cannot rank technical versus non-technical barriers (e.g., safety certification, cost, training, malpractice). I recommend rephrasing the conclusions to state that these are 'technical challenges observed in pre-clinical studies that may impede future translation,' and explicitly acknowledging that the relative importance of non-technical barriers is outside the scope of the included evidence.
  2. [§II-C, Table I, Table III] The inclusion criteria exclude 'shared control systems without a clear autonomous assistant role,' yet reference [8] (Shamaei et al., 2015) is included and described in Table III as a 'paced shared-control teleoperated architecture.' This is an internal inconsistency: the study's title and description identify it as shared control, so the boundary between excluded shared control and included autonomous assistance needs to be operationalized explicitly. The authors should clarify how they determined whether a system has a 'clear autonomous assistant role,' and justify the inclusion of [8] in particular. Without this clarification, the classification of studies into teleoperation and hands-on setups—and the resulting task proportions—rests on an ambiguous criterion.
  3. [§II-B, Table II, §III-A] The quantitative claims (69% endoscope guidance, 31% tool manipulation, 53% dVRK usage, growth trend in Figure 3) are vulnerable to the search and inclusion choices, but the manuscript provides no sensitivity analysis. The search string in Table II requires the token 'autonom*' in TITLE-ABS-KEY, which may systematically miss studies describing their systems as 'semi-autonomous' (as written with a hyphen) or using terminology such as 'shared control,' 'context-aware assistance,' or 'intelligent assistance' that does not include 'autonom*.' Additionally, the full-text screening excluded 41 reports for 'no human factors' and 14 for 'shared control'; the manuscript does not report how many of these exclusions would change the proportions if the boundary were drawn differently. I recommend performing a complementary search with alternative vocabulary (e.g., 'semi-autonomous' and 'assist*' without 'autonom*') and reporting a sensitivity analysis to reassure readers that the proportions and the challenge taxonomy are not artifacts of the exact search string.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§III-A, Figure 3] The text uses both 'tool manipulation (TM)' and 'tool control (TC)' for the same category; please standardize the abbreviation to avoid confusion.
  2. [§II-B] The search window is described as 'January 2015 to December 2025,' but Figure 3 only shows data through 2024; clarify whether 2025 publications were included and how partial-year data were handled.
  3. [References] The PRISMA reference points to the PRISMA-P (protocol) statement rather than the current PRISMA 2020 checklist; please cite the appropriate methodological guideline for the review itself.
  4. [§III-A] The statement that the dVRK was used in 53% of studies is not accompanied by a denominator or a direct count from Tables III and IV; adding a supplementary table with platform frequencies would improve verifiability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity; minor self-citations do not drive the synthesis.

full rationale

This review's claimed outputs are (i) the two-setup taxonomy (teleoperation vs hands-on), (ii) the endoscope-guidance/tool-control task distribution, and (iii) the four-challenge list. None is fixed by the review's input definitions. The Table II search string requires robot/surgery/MIS vocabulary plus collaboration/assist terms plus 'autonom*', but does not mention endoscope guidance, tool control, preference alignment, procedural awareness, skill acquisition, or information exchange; therefore the 69%/31% split and the challenge counts are empirical codings of the 32 retrieved studies, not consequences of the query. The Table I inclusion criteria require human-factors or task-performance outcomes, which shapes the human-factors emphasis, but that requirement is explicit in the research question and does not by itself produce the four specific challenges. The review does cite the authors' own work ([1], [2], [36], [39], [40], [41]), and two self-authored studies, [36] and [39], appear in the included corpus and in Tables III/IV and Table V; however, 30 of the 32 studies are from external groups, the task percentages and challenge tallies would not be qualitatively changed by removing [36] and [39], and no load-bearing argument relies on a self-citation to exclude alternatives or to establish a uniqueness result. The strongest correctness concern is that Section IV's 'primary barriers to widespread clinical translation and adoption' and Section V's 'Four critical challenges impede clinical adoption' go beyond the evidence, because the included studies are laboratory evaluations (phantom/simulation/ex-vivo) and none measures adoption, regulatory, or workflow-integration outcomes. That is an evidentiary-generalization problem, not a circular-reduction problem: the conclusion is not identical to, nor contained in, the search criteria or inclusion rules, and no equation or definition makes the output equal to an input. Hence no circular step can be quoted, and the low score reflects only minor, non-load-bearing self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The review introduces no fitted parameters and no new postulated entities. Its central claims rest on domain assumptions about search coverage, inclusion decisions, and trust in the outcomes reported by the included studies. The axioms listed above are the load-bearing premises that would invalidate the synthesis if violated.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The TITLE-ABS-KEY query in Table II across IEEE Xplore, Scopus, and Web of Science captures the relevant ASAR literature.
    The query requires the literal token 'autonom*' and excludes shared-control terminology, so coverage is a load-bearing assumption for the reported distribution of applications and for the trend in Figure 3.
  • domain assumption The human-factors and performance outcomes reported by the 32 included studies are valid and comparable enough for narrative synthesis.
    The review does not perform risk-of-bias assessment, quality scoring, or effect-size pooling, yet Section III-B aggregates outcomes such as reduced workload and shorter task times.
  • domain assumption The two-setup classification (teleoperation versus hands-on) and the two-task classification (endoscope guidance versus tool control) organize the field without losing important variation.
    This taxonomy is introduced in Section I and Figure 1 and underpins the main claims about where autonomous assistance is concentrated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Human-Robot collaboration in surgery: Advances and challenges towards autonomous surgical assistants." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MJXOOATA

@misc{pith2026250711460,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Human-Robot collaboration in surgery: Advances and challenges towards autonomous surgical assistants},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MJXOOATA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.11460}
}
read the original abstract

Human-robot collaboration in surgery represents a significant area of research, driven by the increasing capability of autonomous robotic systems to assist surgeons in complex procedures. This systematic review examines the advancements and persistent challenges in the development of autonomous surgical robotic assistants (ASARs), focusing specifically on scenarios where robots provide meaningful and active support to human surgeons. Adhering to the PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted across the IEEE Xplore, Scopus, and Web of Science databases, resulting in the selection of 32 studies for detailed analysis. Two primary collaborative setups were identified: teleoperation-based assistance and direct hands-on interaction. The findings reveal a growing research emphasis on ASARs, with predominant applications currently in endoscope guidance, alongside emerging progress in autonomous tool manipulation. Several key challenges hinder wider adoption, including the alignment of robotic actions with human surgeon preferences, the necessity for procedural awareness within autonomous systems, the establishment of seamless human-robot information exchange, and the complexities of skill acquisition in shared workspaces. This review synthesizes current trends, identifies critical limitations, and outlines future research directions essential to improve the reliability, safety, and effectiveness of human-robot collaboration in surgical environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.11460 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. RMIS collaboration setups: (a) Teleoperation, where a lead [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Diagram of the study selection process for this systematic review [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Number of publications per year (2015-2024) included in the review, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [8]

    A paced shared-control teleoperated architecture for supervised automation of multilateral surgical tasks,

    K. Shamaei, Y . Che, A. Murali, S. Sen, S. Patil, K. Goldberg, and A. M. Okamura, “A paced shared-control teleoperated architecture for supervised automation of multilateral surgical tasks,” in 2015 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2015, pp. 1434–1439

    work page 2015

  2. [1]

    Task segmentation based on transition state clustering for surgical robot assistance,

    Y . Yamada, J. Colan, A. Davila, and Y . Hasegawa, “Task segmentation based on transition state clustering for surgical robot assistance,” in 2023 8th International Conference on Control and Robotics Engineer- ing (ICCRE) , 2023, pp. 260–264

    work page 2023

  3. [2]

    Optimization- based constrained trajectory generation for robot-assisted stitching in endonasal surgery,

    J. Colan, J. Nakanishi, T. Aoyama, and Y . Hasegawa, “Optimization- based constrained trajectory generation for robot-assisted stitching in endonasal surgery,” Robotics, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 27, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [3]

    Autonomous robotic laparoscopic surgery for intestinal anastomosis,

    H. Saeidi, J. D. Opfermann, M. Kam, S. Wei, S. Leonard, M. H. Hsieh, J. U. Kang, and A. Krieger, “Autonomous robotic laparoscopic surgery for intestinal anastomosis,” Science Robotics , vol. 7, no. 62, p. eabj2908, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [4]

    Autonomy in surgical robotics,

    A. Attanasio, B. Scaglioni, E. De Momi, P. Fiorini, and P. Valdastri, “Autonomy in surgical robotics,” Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems , vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 651–679, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [5]

    Review of human–robot collaboration in robotic surgery,

    Q. Wan, Y . Shi, X. Xiao, X. Li, and H. Mo, “Review of human–robot collaboration in robotic surgery,” Advanced Intelligent Systems , vol. 7, no. 2, p. 2400319, 2025

    work page 2025

  7. [6]

    The impact of patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (pico) as a search strategy tool on literature search quality: a systematic review,

    M. B. Eriksen and T. F. Frandsen, “The impact of patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (pico) as a search strategy tool on literature search quality: a systematic review,” Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA , vol. 106, no. 4, p. 420, 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [7]

    Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (prisma-p) 2015 statement,

    D. Moher, L. Shamseer, M. Clarke, D. Ghersi, A. Liberati, M. Pet- ticrew, P. Shekelle, and L. A. Stewart, “Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (prisma-p) 2015 statement,” Systematic reviews, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2015

    work page 2015

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Single-Master Dual-Slave Surgical Robot With Automated Relay of Suture Needle,

    K. Watanabe, T. Kanno, K. Ito, and K. Kawashima, “Single-Master Dual-Slave Surgical Robot With Automated Relay of Suture Needle,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics , vol. 65, no. 8, pp. 6343– 6351, 2018

    2018

  2. [10]

    Transferring know-how for an autonomous camera robotic assistant,

    I. Rivas-Blanco, C. J. Perez-del Pulgar, C. L ´opez-Casado, E. Bauzano, and V . F. Mu˜noz, “Transferring know-how for an autonomous camera robotic assistant,” Electronics, vol. 8, no. 2, 2019

    2019

  3. [11]

    Cognitive robotic architecture for semi-autonomous execution of manipulation tasks in a surgical environment,

    G. De Rossi, M. Minelli, A. Sozzi, N. Piccinelli, F. Ferraguti, F. Setti, M. Bonf ´e, C. Secchi, and R. Muradore, “Cognitive robotic architecture for semi-autonomous execution of manipulation tasks in a surgical environment,” in 2019 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intell...

    2019

  4. [12]

    Scan: System for camera autonomous navigation in robotic-assisted surgery,

    T. Da Col, A. Mariani, A. Deguet, A. Menciassi, P. Kazanzides, and E. De Momi, “Scan: System for camera autonomous navigation in robotic-assisted surgery,” in 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , 2020, pp. 2996–3002

    2020

  5. [13]

    An experimental comparison towards au- tonomous camera navigation to optimize training in robot assisted surgery,

    A. Mariani, G. Colaci, T. Da Col, N. Sanna, E. Vendrame, A. Men- ciassi, and E. De Momi, “An experimental comparison towards au- tonomous camera navigation to optimize training in robot assisted surgery,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 1461–1467, 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    Visual-based autonomous field of view control of laparoscope with safety-rcm constraints for semi- autonomous surgery,

    Y . Sun, B. Pan, Y . Fu, and G. Niu, “Visual-based autonomous field of view control of laparoscope with safety-rcm constraints for semi- autonomous surgery,” The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery , vol. 16, no. 2, p. e2079, 2020

    2020

  7. [15]

    Automating endoscope motion in robotic surgery: A usability study on da vinci- assisted ex vivo neobladder reconstruction,

    T. Da Col, G. Caccianiga, M. Catellani, A. Mariani, M. Ferro, G. Cordima, E. De Momi, G. Ferrigno, and O. de Cobelli, “Automating endoscope motion in robotic surgery: A usability study on da vinci- assisted ex vivo neobladder reconstruction,” Frontiers in Robotics and AI, vol. 8, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Sachets: Semi- autonomous cognitive hybrid emergency teleoperated suction,

    J. A. Barragan, D. Chanci, D. Yu, and J. P. Wachs, “Sachets: Semi- autonomous cognitive hybrid emergency teleoperated suction,” in2021 30th IEEE International Conference on Robot & Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), 2021, pp. 1243–1248

    2021

  9. [17]

    Coop- erative assistance in robotic surgery through multi-agent reinforcement learning,

    P. M. Scheikl, B. Gyenes, T. Davitashvili, R. Younis, A. Schulze, B. P. M¨uller-Stich, G. Neumann, M. Wagner, and F. Mathis-Ullrich, “Coop- erative assistance in robotic surgery through multi-agent reinforcement learning,” in 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intellige...

    2021

  10. [18]

    A first evaluation of a multi-modal learning system to control surgical assistant robots via action segmentation,

    G. De Rossi, M. Minelli, S. Roin, F. Falezza, A. Sozzi, F. Ferraguti, F. Setti, M. Bonf `e, C. Secchi, and R. Muradore, “A first evaluation of a multi-modal learning system to control surgical assistant robots via action segmentation,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Robotics and...

    2021

  11. [19]

    A virtual suturing task: proof of concept for awareness in autonomous camera motion,

    N. Pasini, A. Mariani, A. Munawar, E. D. Momi, and P. Kazanzides, “A virtual suturing task: proof of concept for awareness in autonomous camera motion,” in 2022 Sixth IEEE International Conference on Robotic Computing (IRC) , 2022, pp. 376–382

    2022

  12. [20]

    A natural language interface for an autonomous camera control system on the da vinci surgical robot,

    M. Elazzazi, L. Jawad, M. Hilfi, and A. Pandya, “A natural language interface for an autonomous camera control system on the da vinci surgical robot,” Robotics, vol. 11, no. 2, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Grace: Online gesture recognition for autonomous camera-motion en- hancement in robot-assisted surgery,

    N. Pasini, A. Mariani, A. Deguet, P. Kazanzides, and E. De Momi, “Grace: Online gesture recognition for autonomous camera-motion en- hancement in robot-assisted surgery,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 8, no. 12, pp. 8263–8270, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Savanet: Surgical action-driven visual attention network for autonomous endoscope control,

    H. Gao, W. Fan, L. Qiu, X. Yang, Z. Li, X. Zuo, Y . Li, M. Q.-H. Meng, and H. Ren, “Savanet: Surgical action-driven visual attention network for autonomous endoscope control,” IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering , vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 2655–2667, 2023

    2023

  15. [23]

    Toward human-out-of-the- loop endoscope navigation based on context awareness for enhanced autonomy in robotic surgery,

    Z. Chen, K. Fan, L. Cruciani, M. Fontana, L. Muraglia, F. Ceci, L. Travaini, G. Ferrigno, and E. De Momi, “Toward human-out-of-the- loop endoscope navigation based on context awareness for enhanced autonomy in robotic surgery,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Robotics and Bionics...

    2024

  16. [24]

    An intelligent robotic endoscope control system based on fusing natural language processing and vision models,

    B. Dong, J. Chen, Z. Wang, K. Deng, Y . Li, B. Lo, and G. Mylonas, “An intelligent robotic endoscope control system based on fusing natural language processing and vision models,” in 2024 IEEE In- ternational Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2024, pp. 8180–8186

    2024

  17. [25]

    A semi-autonomous data-driven shared control framework for robotic manipulation and cutting of an unknown deformable tissue,

    N. A. Strohmeyer, J. H. Park, B. P. Murphy, and F. Alambeigi, “A semi-autonomous data-driven shared control framework for robotic manipulation and cutting of an unknown deformable tissue,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2024, pp. 9881–9886

    2024

  18. [26]

    Sgr-autolap: Surgical gesture recognition-based autonomous laparoscope control for human-robot shared control in semi-autonomous minimally invasive surgical robot,

    Y . Sun, X. Shi, S. Zhai, K. Zhang, B. Pan, and Y . Fu, “Sgr-autolap: Surgical gesture recognition-based autonomous laparoscope control for human-robot shared control in semi-autonomous minimally invasive surgical robot,” Robotic Intelligence and Automation , vol. 45, no. 1, p...

    2025

  19. [27]

    Collaborative human–robot system for hals suture procedures,

    E. Bauzano, B. Estebanez, I. Garcia-Morales, and V . F. Mu ˜noz, “Collaborative human–robot system for hals suture procedures,” IEEE Systems Journal, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 957–966, 2016

    2016

  20. [28]

    Autonomous flexible endoscope for minimally invasive surgery with enhanced safety,

    X. Ma, C. Song, P. W. Chiu, and Z. Li, “Autonomous flexible endoscope for minimally invasive surgery with enhanced safety,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 2607–2613, 2019

    2019

  21. [29]

    A robotic flexible endoscope with shared autonomy: a study of mockup cholecystectomy,

    C. Song, X. Ma, X. Xia, P. W. Y . Chiu, C. C. N. Chong, and Z. Li, “A robotic flexible endoscope with shared autonomy: a study of mockup cholecystectomy,” Surgical endoscopy, vol. 34, pp. 2730–2741, 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    A learning robot for cognitive camera control in minimally invasive surgery,

    M. Wagner, A. Bihlmaier, H. G. Kenngott, P. Mietkowski, P. M. Scheikl, S. Bodenstedt, A. Schiepe-Tiska, J. Vetter, F. Nickel, S. Spei- del, et al., “A learning robot for cognitive camera control in minimally invasive surgery,” Surgical Endoscopy, vol. 35, no. 9, pp. 5365–5374, 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    Towards an autonomous robot-assistant for laparoscopy using extero- ceptive sensors: Feasibility study and implementation,

    J. Sandoval, M. Laribi, J. Faure, C. Br `eque, J. Richer, and S. Zeghloul, “Towards an autonomous robot-assistant for laparoscopy using extero- ceptive sensors: Feasibility study and implementation,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 6473–6480, 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    Endoscope fov autonomous tracking method for robot-assisted surgery considering pose control, hand–eye coordination, and image definition,

    J. Peng, C. Zhang, L. Kang, and G. Feng, “Endoscope fov autonomous tracking method for robot-assisted surgery considering pose control, hand–eye coordination, and image definition,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement , vol. 71, pp. 1–16, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    A surgeon preference-guided autonomous instrument tracking method with a robotic flexible endoscope based on dvrk platform,

    Y . Huang, J. Li, X. Zhang, K. Xie, J. Li, Y . Liu, C. S. H. Ng, P. W. Y . Chiu, and Z. Li, “A surgeon preference-guided autonomous instrument tracking method with a robotic flexible endoscope based on dvrk platform,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 2...

    2022

  26. [34]

    Robotic endoscope control via autonomous instrument tracking,

    C. Gruijthuijsen, L. C. Garcia-Peraza-Herrera, G. Borghesan, D. Rey- naerts, J. Deprest, S. Ourselin, T. Vercauteren, and E. Vander Poorten, “Robotic endoscope control via autonomous instrument tracking,” Frontiers in Robotics and AI , vol. 9, 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    A cognitive archi- tecture for robot-assisted surgical procedures,

    E. Zini, M. Minelli, L. Sabattini, and F. Ferraguti, “A cognitive archi- tecture for robot-assisted surgical procedures,” IF AC-PapersOnLine, vol. 55, no. 38, pp. 132–137, 2022, 13th IFAC Symposium on Robot Control SYROCO 2022

    2022

  28. [36]

    Endoscope automation framework with hierarchical control and interactive perception for multi-tool tracking in minimally invasive surgery,

    K. Fozilov, J. Colan, A. Davila, K. Misawa, J. Qiu, Y . Hayashi, K. Mori, and Y . Hasegawa, “Endoscope automation framework with hierarchical control and interactive perception for multi-tool tracking in minimally invasive surgery,”Sensors, vol. 23, no. 24, p. 9865, 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    4-dof visual servoing of a robotic flexible endoscope with a predefined-time convergent and noise-immune adaptive neural network,

    Y . Huang, W. Li, X. Zhang, J. Li, Y . Li, Y . Sun, P. W. Y . Chiu, and Z. Li, “4-dof visual servoing of a robotic flexible endoscope with a predefined-time convergent and noise-immune adaptive neural network,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics , vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 576–587, 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    Design and use of assistant robotic arm in endoscopic transnasal surgery,

    A. Ergen, B. C ¸ abuk, P. Yıldırım, M. D. Yener, S. Kizir, M. C ¸ aklılı, ˙Ihsan Anık, and S. Ceylan, “Design and use of assistant robotic arm in endoscopic transnasal surgery,” Neurosurgical F ocus, vol. 57, no. 6, p. E6, 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Latent regression based model predictive control for tissue triangulation,

    S. Liu, J. Colan, Y . Zhu, T. Kobayashi, K. Misawa, M. Takeuchi, and Y . Hasegawa, “Latent regression based model predictive control for tissue triangulation,” Advanced Robotics , vol. 37, no. 24, pp. 1552– 1565, 2024

    2024

  32. [40]

    Multimodal semi- supervised learning for online recognition of multi-granularity surgical workflows,

    Y . Yamada, J. Colan, A. Davila, and Y . Hasegawa, “Multimodal semi- supervised learning for online recognition of multi-granularity surgical workflows,” International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 1075–1083, 2024

    2024

  33. [41]

    V oice control interface for surgical robot assistants,

    A. Davila, J. Colan, and Y . Hasegawa, “V oice control interface for surgical robot assistants,” in 2024 International Symposium on Micro- NanoMehatronics and Human Science (MHS) , 2024, pp. 1–5

    2024

  34. [42]

    Chatgpt-enabled davinci surgical robot prototype: Ad- vancements and limitations,

    A. Pandya, “Chatgpt-enabled davinci surgical robot prototype: Ad- vancements and limitations,” Robotics, vol. 12, no. 4, 2023

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.